In his investigation for The Atlantic into whether America is safer now than it was before the 9/11 attacks, Steven Brill rejects the “fantasy” that the threat of terrorism can be eliminated. And he credits the Obama administration with taking steps not only to prevent terrorist attacks, but also to reduce the damage they cause and enable Americans to rapidly recover when attacks occur. “[T]error is destined to become, yes, routine—a three- or four-times-a-year headline event,” Brill writes. The U.S. homeland will never be entirely secure.

For years now, Barack Obama has differed from most political leaders by saying, in public, that jihadist terrorism is a manageable threat rather than an existential one. The best response to terrorist attacks, he argues, isn’t to panic, which only compounds the problem. It’s to be resilient. “[F]rom Boston to San Bernardino to Orlando, we’ve seen how important it is for communities and first responders to be ready if and when tragedy strikes,” the U.S. president tells Brill.

There’s a reason many politicians don’t say these things. Obama has been ridiculed by critics who claim he is dismissing people’s legitimate fears, underestimating a grave danger, and effectively surrendering to terrorists.

America's struggle to cope with the relentless threats of the post-9/11 worldRead more

What’s striking, however, is that other world leaders have been echoing Obama in recent months. “The times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said after a Tunisian man in a truck plowed into revelers in Nice, sparkingdebate over whether France’s security services could have done more to prevent or neutralize the attack. “Besides organized terrorist attacks, there will be new threats from perpetrators not known to security personnel,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after a series of attacks by asylum-seekers, including an axe-wielding Afghan teenager on a train. Germany wouldn’t stop welcoming refugees just because a few ungrateful asylum-seekers had sought to sow fear, she added, though the government would implement reforms to make such attacks less likely. Germans, she declared, must “live with the danger of terrorism.”

These blunt statements could be interpreted as realistic assessments of the surge in terrorist activity around the world since the emergence of ISIS and the slippery, protean nature of today’s terrorism threat—no longer 19 trained, synchronized assassins who have commandeered Boeing jets, but one guy with access to the internet and an axe. They could also be interpreted as politicians trying to shield themselves from blame for their policies and for future attacks.

Regardless, they may indicate that some governments are poised to embrace a more expansive approach to counterterrorism that pairs efforts to stop terrorist attacks with new initiatives to make societies more resilient to terrorism. National and international authorities hoping to counteract climate change have gradually adjusted their focus in similar ways: Whereas they once prioritized policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (so-called “mitigation”), they’re now also pursuing policies to help people adjust to a warming world (“adaptation”). Mitigation, for example, produces international pledges to limit global temperature increases and national regulations on cars or coal-fired power plants; adaptation leads to genetically engineered drought-tolerant crops and early-warning systems for natural disasters.

The rationale for using terror as a means of warfare is, “It’s easy to do, and I get a big bang for my buck.”

In word and in deed, Obama has emphasized resilience to terrorism more than many other U.S. leaders, said Stephen Flynn, a national-security expert at Northeastern University. But the shift Obama embodies actually began during the second term of the George W. Bush administration, as U.S. officials came to recognize that their overseas war against al-Qaeda had splintered the terrorist threat, rather than defeating it as initially intended. This fragmentation made a 9/11-scale attack less likely, but lesser-scale attacks more likely. And these less-sophisticated attacks are often very difficult, if not impossible, to thwart.

“This was the professional consensus” by the end of Bush’s presidency, “but it wasn’t something widely shared because politicians didn’t want to say this was too hard,” Flynn told me. They didn’t want to sound defeatist.

The problem, Flynn argued, is that politicians inflate expectations by acting as if vulnerability to terrorism can be whittled down to nothing. Then, when an attack inevitably happens, people become disillusioned with government and disempowered by fear. Demagogues exploit the situation, while the government tends to overreact by taking more drastic action to address the threat and making more promises it can’t keep. Then there’s another attack, and the cycle continues.

My colleague James Fallows has referred to this dynamic as the “political tragedy of ‘security theater’”:

In reality, we do accept a greater-than-zero risk of death from terrorist attack. Otherwise, we’d never fly—or would strip everyone nude before boarding, do cavity searches, and carry no cargo. We accept the bargain for efficiency reasons (I’m not going to get to the airport six hours early to be searched). We accept it on “price of liberty” grounds (I’m not going to strip naked). But politicians can’t come out and say that any risk is acceptable. Nor can they take the risk themselves of saying that security-theater rituals should be dropped, because of the risk of being blamed when the next attack occurs. Thus security-theater is a ratchet. You can add it, but you can’t take it away.

“We can’t eliminate all terrorists. But we can’t eliminate disease. We can’t stop hurricanes, we can’t stop tornadoes,” Flynn told me. “We’ve accepted in our lives a lot of risk: Car accidents and so forth. [Terrorism] is a manageable risk. It’s a 21st-century reality—as it’s been a reality in every other century—that we will have these [attacks] playing out with increasing frequency.”

The terrorist threat isn’t remotely close to the kind of threat America faced during the Cold War, Flynn added: “These [terrorist attacks] are really horrible when they happen. … But we’re a huge nation, a great power, and [the attacks] in any military sense are not going to destroy the United States or destroy Europe as we know it.” Societies can bounce back surprisingly quickly from terrorist attacks. Not so with nuclear war between superpowers. And yet since 9/11, the United States has turned to a massive, secretive national-security apparatus designed for world wars and cold wars, and tasked it with fighting the very different beast of terrorism.

Investing in resilience might seem like an expression of defeat, but it could actually deter terrorists, according to Flynn. The classic definition of a threat, he noted, is that there is both intent and capability to cause harm. “The French have nuclear weapons, but they’re not a threat [to America]. They have capability, but they don’t have intent,” he explained. “And we have people who wake up each morning wanting to usher in armageddon, but they can’t get out of their bedrooms. They have intent, but no capability.”

The rationale for using terror as a means of warfare is, “It’s easy to do, and I get a big bang for my buck,” he continued. If, in a more resilient society, terrorism “became less easy to do, then fewer people would be capable of doing it. And if they did it, it’s a fizzle, not a bang,” making the use of terrorism against that society less attractive. Intent and capability, and thus the threat as a whole, would be diminished. The goal of resilience is not just to design systems so they can withstand shocks, but also so they can “fail gracefully and recover nicely.”

Related Story

Resilience policies can involve governments informing the public in greater detail about the nature of contemporary terrorist threats and how to spot potential plots. They can involve governments creating community preparedness plans modeled on fire and building codes, developing mobile-phone apps to issue alerts in the event of an attack, and encouraging constituents to receive training in tactical first aid. It’s a cliche, but one that also happens to be true: People can’t entirely control the threat of terrorism, but they can control how they react to it. And exercising that control might actually decrease the threat.

What resilience does not mean is neglecting efforts to prevent terrorism. We don’t resign ourselves to car accidents: We enact laws against drunk driving and we install air bags. Instead, the goal is for societies to determine the lengths they are willing to go to try and stop terrorist attacks, and then to find ways to reconcile with the risk that remains by minimizing the costs of terrorism and, when attacks occur, learning from what went wrong and funneling those insights back into prevention.

Flynn pointed to federally funded emergency drills with security and medical personnel, which have helped contain the damage inflicted by attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing. (As with climate-change adaptation, resilience measures are typically implemented in partnership with local government, civil society, and the private sector.) “Every single person who didn’t die immediately [in Boston] was in a hospital [or en route to one] in 22 minutes, and they all survived,” he said.

But, in his opinion, the Obama administration has failed to build resilience on a number of fronts. What worries him most is the “dirty bomb in the box” scenario in which, for example, explosives mixed with radiological material are placed in a container and detonated at a U.S. port. “Should that happen, the response almost certainly will be to shut everything down to sort it out,” Flynn told me. “And that will create a series of cascading events that will shut down the global trade system within about two to three weeks.”

“Today we have no plan for how to deal with that. There’s no organized effort to work either with industry or countries for that scenario,” Flynn said. “One of the thinnest documents coming out of the Obama administration … is the Global Supply Chain Security Strategy that’s, like, five and a half pages, which includes the executive summary.”

“For the Israelis, it’s important to deny the adversary the sense that they caused disruption and harm.”

Countries such as Israel and the United Kingdom are far ahead of the United States in terms of resilience against terrorism, according to Flynn. Their preparedness is often the result of grim necessity: In the U.K.’s case, bombings by the Irish Republican Army; in Israel’s, Palestinian terrorist attacks. Israel, Flynn noted, has established protocols specifying that within three minutes of an attack, a civilian must take charge of the emergency response if professionals haven’t arrived. Within 20 minutes, all the injured should be transported to hospitals. Within two to three hours, the site should be cleaned of debris. Within days, the site should be functioning as normal. Israeli law-enforcement officials typically conclude their investigation of the incident after the site has been cleaned up.

In Israel, the investigation is “not the priority,” Flynn explained. In the United States, by contrast, “the FBI swoops in, shuts down the entire [scene]. They’ve got to find every last hair and fingerprint. The Israeli perspective is: It’s more important to deny the adversary the sense that they caused disruption and harm.”

Still, resilience is a deliberate choice, not some destination countries are ineluctably headed toward in an age of chronic terrorism. Even as France’s prime minister reflected on the challenge of living with terrorism after the Nice attack, Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right National Front, was urging a declaration of “war against the scourge of Islamist fundamentalism,” which would require the “necessary means of prevention and repression, and the total determination to eradicate the scourge of Islamist fundamentalism.” In the United States, Donald Trump claims Islamic terrorism is so serious a threat to America’s very existence that it justifies the U.S. government reinstating the torture of terrorism suspects, killing the families of terrorists, and banning entire religions and regions of the world from the country. The Republican presidential candidate has pledged to “liberate” Americans from terrorism.

In a way, Flynn said, Trump is reviving the rhetoric of U.S. leaders immediately after the 9/11 attacks. In Trump’s view, Flynn told me, the risk from terrorism “is unbounded and we have to do whatever it takes to destroy it.” That doesn’t bode well for the reforms Flynn would like to see. “We are in the most anti-resilient of all [political] campaigns right now,” he said. And a country is only as resilient as its leaders.

About the Author

Most Popular

After a year of uncertainty and unhappiness, the president is reportedly feeling more comfortable—but has he really mastered the job?

It was a fun weekend for Donald Trump. Late on Friday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Andrew McCabe, the outgoing FBI deputy director whom Trump had long targeted, and the president spent the rest of the weekend taking victory laps: cheering McCabe’s departure, taking shots at his former boss and mentor James Comey, and renewing his barrage against Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump’s moods shift quickly, but over the last week or so, a different overarching feel has manifested itself, a meta-mood. Although he remains irritated by Mueller and any number of other things, Trump seems to be relishing the latest sound of chaos, “leaning into the maelstrom,” as McKay Coppins put it Friday. This is rooted, Maggie Haberman reports, in a growing confidence on the president’s part: “A dozen people close to Mr. Trump or the White House, including current and former aides and longtime friends, described him as newly emboldened to say what he really feels and to ignore the cautions of those around him.”

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

A new six-part Netflix documentary is a stunning dive into a utopian religious community in Oregon that descended into darkness.

To describe Wild Wild Country as jaw-dropping is to understate the number of times my mouth gaped while watching the series, a six-part Netflix documentary about a religious community in Oregon in the 1980s. It’s ostensibly the story of how a group led by the dynamic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh purchased 64,000 acres of land in central Oregon in a bid to build its own utopian city. But, as the series immediately reveals, the narrative becomes darker and stranger than you might ever imagine. It’s a tale that mines the weirdness of the counterculture in the ’70s and ’80s, the age-old conflict between rural Americans and free love–preaching cityfolk, and the emotional vacuum that compels people to interpret a bearded mystic as something akin to a god.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop that includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law-enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

For years, the restaurateur played a jerk with a heart of gold. Now, he’s the latest celebrity chef to be accused of sexual harassment.

“There’s no way—no offense—but a girl shouldn’t be at the same level that I am.”

That was Mike Isabella, celebrity chef and successful restaurateur, making his debut on the show that would make him famous. Bravo’s Top Chef, to kick off its Las Vegas–set Season 6, had pitted its new group of contestants against each other in a mise-en-place relay race; Isabella, shucking clams, had looked over and realized to his great indignation that Jen Carroll, a sous chef at New York’s iconic Le Bernardin, was doing the work more quickly than he was.

Top Chef is a simmering stew of a show—one that blends the pragmatic testing of culinary artistry with reality-TV sugar and reality-TV spice—and Isabella quickly established himself as Season 6’s pseudo-villain: swaggering, macho, quick to anger, and extremely happy to insult his fellow contestants, including Carroll and, soon thereafter, Robin Leventhal (a self-taught chef and cancer survivor). Isabella was a villain, however, who was also, occasionally, self-effacing. A little bit bumbling. Aw, shucks, quite literally. He would later explain, of the “same level” comment:

Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits had the chance to signal to Trump that his attacks on law enforcement are unacceptable—but they sent the opposite message.

President Trump raged at his TV on Sunday morning. And yet on balance, he had a pretty good weekend. He got a measure of revenge upon the hated FBI, firing former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe two days before his pension vested. He successfully coerced his balky attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into speeding up the FBI’s processes to enable the firing before McCabe’s retirement date.

Beyond this vindictive fun for the president, he achieved something politically important. The Trump administration is offering a not very convincing story about the McCabe firing. It is insisting that the decision was taken internally by the Department of Justice, and that the president’s repeated and emphatic demands—public and private—had nothing whatsoever to do with it.